Re: MERGE command for inheritance

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Boxuan Zhai <bxzhai2010(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: MERGE command for inheritance
Date: 2010-08-11 15:23:27
Message-ID: 1281540207.2142.1713.camel@ebony
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 11:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 13:25 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> I concur that Boxuan's suggested "difficult" approach seems like the
> >> right one.
>
> > Right, but you've completely ignored my proposal: lets do this in two
> > pieces. Get what we have now ready to commit, then add support for
> > partitioning later, as a second project.
>
> Do we really think this is anywhere near committable now?
>
> If it's committable in every other respect, I could see just having it
> throw a NOT_IMPLEMENTED error when the target table has children.
> I thought we were still a very long way from that though.

Well, if we go off chasing this particular goose then we will set
ourselves back at least one commitfest. I'd rather work towards having a
fully committable patch without inheritance sooner than an even bigger
patch arriving later in the cycle, which could make things difficult for
us.

I cite recent big patch experience as admissible evidence, m'lord.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2010-08-11 15:29:10 Re: "micro bucket sort" ...
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2010-08-11 15:23:19 Re: MERGE Specification